Vaccine Stocks Plummet! What Experts Discovered About the Prasad Memo Will Shock You!

The recent revelation from Vinay Prasad, chief of the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, has sent ripples through the medical and financial communities. In a leaked internal memo last week, Prasad claimed that the deaths of at least 10 children could be linked to COVID-19 vaccinations. However, he did not provide specific evidence to back this assertion, raising significant concerns among experts about the memo's transparency and implications for vaccine policy.

Peter Lurie, president of the Center for Science in the Public Interest and a former associate commissioner at the FDA, remarked, “After years of working at the FDA, I’ve never seen a memo like that. It’s a screed that veers into things of no clear relevance whatsoever.” His sentiments reflect a wider unease among medical experts regarding Prasad's use of the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS)—a public database for vaccine side effects—as the basis for his claim. Critics argue that VAERS data is unverified and typically requires thorough follow-up investigations, which Prasad's memo seemed to lack.

As a consequence of these unsettling claims, shares of vaccine makers, particularly **Moderna** and **BioNTech**, took a hit. Moderna's stock, which has already seen a decline of over 40% this year, dropped further by 7% to close at $24.16. BioNTech shares fell 3.9% to $98.44 as investors reacted to the potential for increased regulatory scrutiny.

Claims Without Clear Evidence

Prasad's six-page memo, titled “Deaths in children due to COVID-19 vaccines and CBER’s path forward,” was published by **The Washington Post**. In it, he asserted that an investigation into VAERS had identified these tragic cases but failed to supply specific data, such as which vaccine manufacturers were involved or when the deaths occurred. This lack of detail has raised alarms among industry experts like **Paul Offit**, director of the Vaccine Education Center at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, who stated, “When you make a sensational claim like that, a frightening claim like that, at the very least, you owe it to the public to provide the evidence.”

Further complicating matters, Prasad criticized the data used to approve COVID-19 vaccines, describing observational cohorts and case control data as having “notorious methodological biases.” Yet Lurie pointed out that the traditional data sources used for vaccine approvals—clinical trials and emergency room presentations—are generally considered more reliable than VAERS reports. This has led some to question whether Prasad's memo represents an attempt to undermine established scientific consensus.

**Dorit Reiss**, a professor of law at UC Law San Francisco, echoed Lurie’s concerns, stating that Prasad’s approach appears to lack a proper cost-benefit analysis, a fundamental responsibility for a regulatory leader. “Essentially, he’s announcing that he’s making changes by fiat,” Reiss asserted, suggesting that the memo reflects a troubling disregard for established regulatory processes.

The implications of Prasad's memo extend beyond immediate market reactions. It arrives amid a broader trend in vaccine sentiment, particularly since **Robert F. Kennedy Jr.** assumed the role of Secretary of Health and Human Services in February. Under his leadership, anti-vaccine rhetoric has gained momentum, affecting discussions within the CDC's vaccine advisory committee. As a result, major vaccine manufacturers like **Pfizer**, **Merck**, **GSK**, and **Sanofi** have reported declining sales as public confidence in vaccines wanes.

Analysts at **William Blair** noted that Moderna is particularly vulnerable, indicating that the company faces “further headwinds towards [its] declining COVID-19 franchise alongside further negative sentiment that this memo and subsequent actions may generate.” Even though Moderna recently reported an efficacy improvement for its updated trivalent flu vaccine—showing a 26.6% efficacy increase over previous generations—the company now faces additional scrutiny due to a reported rise in adverse events during trials.

As the conversation around vaccine safety becomes increasingly polarized, the need for transparency and careful communication has never been more critical. The stakes are high, not just for public health but for the future of the vaccine industry itself. As experts call for clarity and evidence, the FDA under Prasad’s leadership must navigate these turbulent waters with the utmost care and responsibility.